Another What's the Alternative Thread

[_madeleine]

KevinSim -- Just as there are hundreds (if not thousands) of churches you could attend in order to determine a path, there are ten thousand times more books.

If "good"means to you "moral good", then your choices are very broad, as all religions offer teachings in regards to what is morally good. But that perhaps could narrow your reading selection. Perhaps seek out books that describe the moral teachings of various religious groups?

Also, the atheism/agnostic argument for moral good outside of religion is valid. These arguments are usually more focused on what is ethical, rather than what is moral. From the point of view of a person with faith (me), the idea that religion is beneficial because it instills morality, is a reduction of faith.

What is "good" is also a philosophical discussion.

I don't know your background, but, I am biased towards Catholicism. :) I like the philosophical discussions of Dr. Peter Kreeft. He used to offer his lectures for free on his website. Now he has put them up on iTunes for $2. http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm Perhaps you'll see something of interest. If not, I recommend the writings of Augustine, who was not only an influential philosopher but an influential theologian. His writings are freely available on the internet. Most philosophy courses start with "The City of God". http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm

Pray always, for God to lead you to Him.

I think kevin suspects answering the question may put him in a position he cannot defend as something the LDS church can only provide or is the best for providing it. He has tried this before.

Ah, well, sounds like trolling? At any rate, there is nothing wrong with staying in the faith tradition you were born into. Most people do.

[_Themis]

Ah, well, sounds like trolling? At any rate, there is nothing wrong with staying in the faith tradition you were born into. Most people do.

If it makes one happy, great.

[_just me]

Therefore one atheist from a list of philanthropists can be proven to be doing more good than your invisible, unknown "good god."

Of course said atheist can! When you're talking about proof, that atheist has an obvious advantage. The question is, is that atheist doing enough? Is that atheist actually aiming high enough?

Yes and yes.

I say there's a God who will preserve forever some good things. I fully admit I have no way to prove that God will do that. So what? Am I supposed to become an atheist just because there's no way to prove that my God is doing more lasting good than the mentioned atheist is?

Your assertion is meaningless to everyone but you. You are free to believe anything you want. However, you are likely doing LESS to help future generations than an atheist philanthropist because you are giving the responsibility to another (unproven) entity.

If the atheist realizes that that atheist's conscience requires her/him to work toward eternal goals, then that's something, and that's what I was asking for in the OP. If the atheist doesn't even recognize the need for someone who understands how to preserve forever some good things, then in my opinion that atheist doesn't really understand her/his obligations to future generations of humanity, and I will stick with people who do understand said obligations.

Many, many atheists, agnostics and religionists are going about doing what they can to build a better world for future generations. Just because they believe that nothing can last for "eternity" does not mean their work is any less valuable.


You have been asked numerous times on this thread what exactly is the "good" that you want "preserved forever." When someone asks you ask them why they are asking. We have even given you answers to that question. Now answer me this, WHY won't you answer the simple question?

[_just me]

But that wasn't what my OP was about. I commend those atheists for their philanthropy, and would like to see more philanthropy like it from great numbers of other people. What my OP said was that although such contributions are good, they aren't enough.

Are you doing enough Kevin? Can you give me a list of the specific things you have done this past month to "preserve some good things forever?"

[_just me]

Is this why you have been dodging people's question of what you think is real good.

I've been dodging people's questions, so to speak, because of the sheer irony of people asking me to define good.

Do you not realize that people are not in full agreement as to what is "good?"

Is full equality good or the devil's plan? Depends on who you ask! For some it is a goal to have women hold the priesthood, for others that is not good at all.

Is it good to financially assist people who are living in poverty? Depends on who you ask!

[_KevinSim]

Then answer the question if you think we have to have an understanding of what it is.

Maybe I've lost track of what the question was. There have kind of been two questions floating around, both of which I answered. What is the definition of good? I answered that a long time ago by listing the dictionary definition that defined it as "morally excellent." What's an example of something good? I answered that in the last post; an example of something good is open and honest discussion, like the discussion we're having just now.

Themis, if the question you're talking about isn't one of these two, then what is the question? I don't remember anything other than these two.

[_KevinSim]

Already being done. Just because we haven't yet got to a point to guarantee future generations forever(if possible), doesn't mean people are not working on it.

I find it hard to believe that any person or group of persons is seriously working on it, even if you throw out the forever part.

For one thing, what does anyone really know about climate change, about global warming? Sure a lot of people talk about it, generate a lot of words of warning. But is there a mechanism in place that will evaluate the claims, find out if humanity (let alone the other living things on the planet) is in danger, and will take steps to solve the problem if humanity is in fact in danger?

Then there's also the problem of exponential population growth. It doesn't matter how many resources the planet has; as long as that number of resources is finite, exponential population growth is going to exhaust those finite resources very quickly. Where is the mechanism that needs to be in place to put an end to this out of control population growth?

Here are two things that could cause humanity serious grief in the relative short term. I really doubt there are sufficiently influential people working on getting either of these two problems solved.

[_KevinSim]

People are thinking about it, and doing something about it.

Really? Now that's an interesting response. What exactly are people doing to try to solve the problem of the heat death of the universe at roughly 100 billion C.E.?

You just don't seem to understand what cannot be done right now, and what needs to be done first to get to that point if it is possible.

I have no problem whatsoever with groundwork that needs to be done in order to get to the point where we can solve the overall problem, just as long as solving the overall problem is the ultimate goal.

[_KevinSim]

I think kevin suspects answering the question may put him in a position he cannot defend as something the LDS church can only provide or is the best for providing it. He has tried this before.

Themis, what is this question you say I haven't answered?

[_Themis]

Then answer the question if you think we have to have an understanding of what it is.

Maybe I've lost track of what the question was. There have kind of been two questions floating around, both of which I answered. What is the definition of good? I answered that a long time ago by listing the dictionary definition that defined it as "morally excellent." What's an example of something good? I answered that in the last post; an example of something good is open and honest discussion, like the discussion we're having just now.

Themis, if the question you're talking about isn't one of these two, then what is the question? I don't remember anything other than these two.

Forget it. You have no intention of answering it anyways, even though justme brought it up again.